Is it ok to refuse to give current salary to recruiters/prospective employers?

As I look for tech jobs in my area, I see less than 10% list a salary range. Everything is "DOE" or "Market" or "competitive." Getting as far as I did with one, I was asked detailed salary information broken down by year over the last four years. What was the base for x year? Did you get a raise? When was it active? Did you get a bonus? How much? Do you expect one this year? How much?

That was all electronic before I met someone in person. In person, they went over it to uncover other aspects like reimbursements, cost of health insurance, and any other perks that may be outside of your base salary.

As I look for tech jobs in my area, I see less than 10% list a salary range. Everything is "DOE" or "Market" or "competitive." Getting as far as I did with one, I was asked detailed salary information broken down by year over the last four years. What was the base for x year? Did you get a raise? When was it active? Did you get a bonus? How much? Do you expect one this year? How much?

That was all electronic before I met someone in person. In person, they went over it to uncover other aspects like reimbursements, cost of health insurance, and any other perks that may be outside of your base salary.

That would definitely skeeve me out. That is more information than they need and really reeks of trying to figure out how little they can skate by on and keep you on board.

Yep - they're using a job posting as a honeypot to get a pulse on the market. They're literally preying on potential candidates and using them as unwitting market researchers. Smart of them, but also very shady, IMO.

I fully believe that when they ask what you're making currently, you should tell them how much you want to make (as long as it's reasonable, of course) at their position.

I've done this every time, and it hasn't turned out poorly.

My main example for why you should do this is my wife. I told her never tell them how much you make/made at your last job, tell them how much you want to make.

My wife got out of the military, and went to school at first. A few months into school, she got a job at Target just for something to do, and a little extra (very little, imo) cash. She was making 8 or so an hour. She quit Target for about a year, and finally got a job as an admin assistant at my former job (I still had contacts there and heard they were looking).

She put down how much she was making at Target on their application. The people there when she interviewed mentioned that the position paid about 45k/year. These people were the gov't workers, not the contractor that my wife was actually being hired by, and quite reasonably shouldn't have told my wife that.

The contract company offered my wife 30k/year, and they DIRECTLY stated to her they had to get approval because their policy is your last job +10% (which $8/h is no where near $30K). They continued to bill the gov't at the already stated contract rate of $50/h. My wife, very simply, got fucked over big time because she didn't do what I told her. After her year, her raise was about equal to somewhere between slap in the face and fuck all. They continue to bill the gov't for $50/h.

When dealing with contractors, tell them how much you want to make, then tell them it's dependent on other factors like how many vacation days, medical coverage, etc. and you'd adjust your salary requirements up or down accordingly.

So, now I'm a firm believe in take care of yourself first, be firm about your salary requirements, but try to seem like you're willing to negotiate. If you do, they might just be willing to give you the salary you desire, and extra vacation days, too.

With very few exceptions, EVERYTHING can be negotiated to some degree. However, expect that the only things you'll most likely get leverage on are salary and vacation time. It takes a lot of work to try and get medical coverage and 401k matching increased. (My friend managed to get his company to match 10% of his salary in a retirement plan).

The contract company offered my wife 30k/year, and they DIRECTLY stated to her they had to get approval because their policy is your last job +10% (which $8/h is no where near $30K). They continued to bill the gov't at the already stated contract rate of $50/h. My wife, very simply, got fucked over big time because she didn't do what I told her. After her year, her raise was about equal to somewhere between slap in the face and fuck all. They continue to bill the gov't for $50/h.

You really think the cheap motherfuckers in this story would have hired her if she'd refused to fill out their petty little template (or been caught in a lie)?

Conversely, do you think LordFrith (to pick on a well-known example who I hope won't mind) would've *ever* achieved his current salary at a company that insisted on adding some arbitrary % to what he was making during grad school?

No amount of Jedi-master interview-fu is gonna turn a bottom-feeder contract agency into Google, or vice versa. Focus your anger somewhere more productive.

As I look for tech jobs in my area, I see less than 10% list a salary range. Everything is "DOE" or "Market" or "competitive." Getting as far as I did with one, I was asked detailed salary information broken down by year over the last four years. What was the base for x year? Did you get a raise? When was it active? Did you get a bonus? How much? Do you expect one this year? How much?

That was all electronic before I met someone in person. In person, they went over it to uncover other aspects like reimbursements, cost of health insurance, and any other perks that may be outside of your base salary.

Flip it around. Why would you expect companies to publish this information in a way that might benefit their competitors or increase labor costs?

If you are actively job hunting, narrowing down a real-world range is not that difficult. Ask your friends. Network. Read angsty blogs. Pivot the graphs on GlassDoor a few different ways and you can extract the underlying data (with much smaller error bars than any one chart will show). Call back a few of the questionable recruiters putting out these fuzzy listings, and ask point blank "I make $X, won't leave for less than $Y, have you placed anyone at that level recently?" $X can be a total lie in this scenario, because you're not gonna actually apply via a questionable recruiter, of course -- save your personal info for the good ones.

There's no right to non-incrimination in employment negotiations. If you don't answer, I can assume that your current employer pays you a pittance because you're incompetent.

You can assume whatever you like, but you should acknowledge a non-zero chance that you'd be wrong.

Sure, maybe. So what?

Candidate employees generally greatly outnumber vacant positions. Eliminating candidates who leaves questions unanswered might occasionally result in not hiring someone good, but the pool is usually sufficiently big that it doesn't really matter; there are going to be good candidates who do answer the questions.

Candidate employees generally greatly outnumber vacant positions. Eliminating candidates who leaves questions unanswered might occasionally result in not hiring someone good, but the pool is usually sufficiently big that it doesn't really matter; there are going to be good candidates who do answer the questions.

Right - for most positions, the difficulty isn't so much in locating the best candidate, it's in eliminating all the unsuitable ones. Not answering a standard question is any easy filter.

For positions where that is not the case, well, employers have to pay a premium for highly specialized skills.

They ask for 2 primary reasons - First and foremost, it helps them gauage the commission they'll get off of placing you, and helps set a prioritization.Second, they know where you come from, so if they find an employer that they think they think can fit and can sell YOU on, they know what kind of wiggle room they have going in on trying to coerce you into a position.

Sure they keep your salary requirements in mind... the higher the salary they place you at, the bigger the commission BUT at least they can weigh what kind of pay off they'll be making.They're playing both sides but their alliances will lean with the hiring firm far more than someone they're trying to place. Keep a good rapport with a firm that's growing, they have better potential to place people and make more money going forward. Place a job seeker... usually that's it. One time payoff.

It's all a matching game to them. Firm is seeking skillset X @ $Y. Resume has skillset X and is asking $Y+10k. They know Resume came from $Y-10k, so let's see if we can the person to bend. It's part of why they ALWAYS ask for not to speak to the firm directly. They want to be in control of both sides of the deal to maximize their potential payoff.It's also part of why they ask for resumes in word format rather than PDF, so they can manipulate it a bit and put their header at the top.

Point of interest: I just recently backfilled an opening with an external candidate. He told me his then-current salary during the interview process. I considered his disclosure to be brutally honest, because his then-current salary was damned near criminal. Despite a long history of glowing reviews and accolades, and a referral from a co-worker of mine who was his former manager, he simply could NOT get his salary advanced to where it should be within the confines of his corporate culture.

So I hired him away from them...giving him an 80% raise (not including bonus or stock) in the process. So, let's review.

His previous company had a stupid policy of not being able to reward him appropriately. He was being paid less than folks with 10 years less experience than he had. They were bound by their own inertia and corporate red tape. This led him, despite being completely happy with where he was in all other ways, to look outside for more compensation.

Any company that *wouldn't* consider giving him a large bump (previous + 10%, for example) would lose out on this guy because that 10% wouldn't be enough for him to walk away from a job he'd been excelling at for 12+ years.

Win for me...he fixed a huge problem we'd had for several months in his first 40 hours.

My old corporate culture was funny due to their rules about raises. The rule lead to unhappiness all the time as new hires were always starting higher than people who had been there for years.I'm at a company that has customary quitting and going to another company 6 mo-1 year so you can come back and get a real raise.

My old corporate culture was funny due to their rules about raises. The rule lead to unhappiness all the time as new hires were always starting higher than people who had been there for years.I'm at a company that has customary quitting and going to another company 6 mo-1 year so you can come back and get a real raise.

When I worked for Lockheed they actually gave new hires an extra 2.5-3.5% raise for the first two years of their employment (more or less automatic and on top of merit increases) just to try and keep people from making less than new hires. Not that they didn't have problems with their reviews/merit increase system, but I certainly appreciated that fact. My understanding is they phased that program out after the dotcom bubble burst.

My old corporate culture was funny due to their rules about raises. The rule lead to unhappiness all the time as new hires were always starting higher than people who had been there for years.I'm at a company that has customary quitting and going to another company 6 mo-1 year so you can come back and get a real raise.

When I worked for Lockheed they actually gave new hires an extra 2.5-3.5% raise for the first two years of their employment (more or less automatic and on top of merit increases) just to try and keep people from making less than new hires. Not that they didn't have problems with their reviews/merit increase system, but I certainly appreciated that fact. My understanding is they phased that program out after the dotcom bubble burst.

Dell was the same way, back in the olden days and they were inflexible as hell.

Their demand for techs in the 90s (at various levels) exceeded local supply back when all of their operations were Austin, TX based. The market was booming nationwide (lots of folks compared themselves to Compaq since they were nearby and CoL was lower in Houston, Dell had to track Compaq's pay grades pretty closely.)

Every ~9-12 weeks they'd bring in a new "class" of employees fresh out of training and wouldn't hire externally without these training/weed-out periods. For given position X, every class was paid about $0.50/hour more than the class previous. The maximum annual raise was around 7-8%.

So as a for example, one group came in at $12.50/hour, the next at $13/hour. By the time your first yearly raise cycle came around, you were being paid $2/hour less than the newbies but possibly making $2-3/hour more than the veterans. There was no grand pay re-allocation while I was there. You can imagine when some folks are earning about $10-11/hour and others $15/hour with the pay reflecting inverse experience, there was a lot of grumbling.

I have specific rules that I have to live by when setting salary information, but also the flexibility to.. not bend rules, but utilize them creatively

These stories I why I always tell IT guys that if they are at a job for more then five years they are underpaid. Period.

While often the case, I think the caveat that "5 years at the same position" or "5 years at the same title" might be slightly closer to a perfect description.

That's true of a lot of job titles, though. IT folks who have been around for a while just have it ingrained in their psyche. We've been the ones driving a lot of the desire to have more symmetrical data when arguing salary. I know my market rate and that rate has very little bearing on what I earn now or have earned in the past.

incognito wrote:The contract company offered my wife 30k/year, and they DIRECTLY stated to her they had to get approval because their policy is your last job +10% (which $8/h is no where near $30K).

Then they can't meet her salary requirement. Move on.

Whether they can't meet your salary requirement for a valid reason or a completely idiotic made up reason, it makes no difference to you.

And if they ask the question to begin with, they aren't going to magically reverse their stupid policy and offer you gobs of $$ because you refused to answer. If they asked the question, it's for a reason. It doesn't matter if that reason is benign, malevolent, is of huge importance or little importance.

That's why I said earlier, bitching about the "why" is pointless. They asked cause they asked. Who fucking cares why, they asked. If they asked, it's cause they want to know. Period. They consider it important knowledge to have, even if you think it isn't. Refusing to answer the question is not going to make them rethink their policies.

My old corporate culture was funny due to their rules about raises. The rule lead to unhappiness all the time as new hires were always starting higher than people who had been there for years.I'm at a company that has customary quitting and going to another company 6 mo-1 year so you can come back and get a real raise.

I had to do that. Got screwed over from a bad manager, bad years economically (2001-3), and I was just low for a bit. Left and came back in a year to get 40% more in total. Now that's more like it.

With my current job I told them how much I made because they asked and I was fine with it, and I needed to get a new job asap, so I needed to only take the time to talk to employers I knew could at least cover what I currently made. I also had a friend who worked there so I knew what I made and wanted wasn't too far off.

At a previous interview for a different company years ago I told them a number that was about 15% more than what I made based on my assumption if I got a raise and promotion what I would be closer to, and then told them what I needed to take their job. I felt like if I stated my real salary, which is about 11k less than what I said I needed, they would have lowballed me.

This most recent time the recruiter just asked me if what I made plus some more was fine, and it was. The opportunity and position was much better, so that made up for the smaller raise.

All those scenarios seem reasonable. Though in the example where you lied, you'd be in a real pickle if they had been your top choice, then turned around and asked for documentation...

Since everyone seems to think anecdotes are the way to answer this question, I'll share a couple.

At one company, I wasn't certain what that particular position paid, so I asked the hiring manager: "if you filled this spot, and that person met every expectation, how much would it typically take to keep them around?" He gave a round number, call it X. Time goes by, documents are exchanged with various arms of HR, and I eventually land a formal offer containing a funky salary number that clearly came from some formula (probably $current_base * $recent_CAGR + a small %), amounting to around 0.5X. I presented this offer to the other company I was primarily interested in, and promptly received their offer for X/2 + 4%. Chose the first company [for reasons not relevant here...]

At my first review, the bonus + old salary summed to exactly X; my raise brought me to a big round number circa 0.75X, backdated to the start of the fiscal year. Plainly, the fact I'd provided salary history & the short-term HR shenanigans that followed made no difference in the end, except to:* make me eligible for an offer in the first place* minimize risk if I were a dud* dramatically curtail the recruiting commissions incurred

Another time, I was casting a wider, shallower net: my interview schedule was both crunched for time and spread out geographically (spanning sizable CoL gaps). As a result I was giving away salary info proactively; I couldn't afford guessing games. Ended up taking the first job whose offer package included at least 20% signing bonus + some sort of CoL-adjusted raise, because that's what I needed at the time. In theory, a candidate experienced in negotiating the market wage for this region & industry "should" have netted a bigger raise, rather than be "wowed" at the gross increase from prior jobs. But as in the prior example, where HR was the illogical gatekeeper, theory doesn't always apply. This time around *I* was the one intentionally sacrificing some upside in favor of short-term risk management.

Aftermath: I quit shortly after the signing bonus' clawback expired, for nonpecuniary reasons. My boss admitted in our exit interview that he'd picked me up at a bit of discount, and wasn't too surprised to see me trade up as fortunes improved. That job gave me a solid footing from which I could spring for the 33% tax bracket & beyond.

Two very different circumstances, each of which might have resolved themselves in multiple ways. (Not all of them good ways, admittedly!) But no matter how I play out the variations in my head -- or those shared by other Arsians over the years -- I simply can't come up with one where being coy about salary history would've helped.

Current job: my new (then-prospective) boss asked "how much do you need?" and I told him. He said it was at the top end of the range for the position. Then he made sure the offer had what I asked for on it.

In my last negotiation my requirements definitely had more of an impact than my pay history. My company was very interested in what I was making because they want very much to provide competitive benefits to everyone in their company.

incognito wrote:The contract company offered my wife 30k/year, and they DIRECTLY stated to her they had to get approval because their policy is your last job +10% (which $8/h is no where near $30K).

Then they can't meet her salary requirement. Move on.

Whether they can't meet your salary requirement for a valid reason or a completely idiotic made up reason, it makes no difference to you.

And if they ask the question to begin with, they aren't going to magically reverse their stupid policy and offer you gobs of $$ because you refused to answer. If they asked the question, it's for a reason. It doesn't matter if that reason is benign, malevolent, is of huge importance or little importance.

That's why I said earlier, bitching about the "why" is pointless. They asked cause they asked. Who fucking cares why, they asked. If they asked, it's cause they want to know. Period. They consider it important knowledge to have, even if you think it isn't. Refusing to answer the question is not going to make them rethink their policies.

Oh, I understand; It's two-pronged bitching. One at my wife for not following my advice, and two at the company, which I also used to work for, for being so underhanded (this stems from before when I worked for them).

Regardless, my wife took the position at the stated amount. I told her to counter offer, which she did about as aggressively as a newborn kitten. I heard her on the phone, she said "Would it be possible to go up to 35k?" in a very meek voice. Naturally, they said no, it's not possible.

I love my wife, but if the world was going to end unless she called some stranger on the phone and talked to them, well, it's nice knowing all of you.

In any event, she quit a little while ago to go back to school.

And because companies do this crap, I don't feel wrong all at when I tell them how much I want to make instead of the exact dollar figure given at the last job. After all, there are many things that you aren't paid cash for, but can convert directly into how much you'll willing to leave for. Quality of life/job/commute isn't something that's asked for under salary, but I'll be damned if I didn't consider it in my next offer.

Ive had a couple of interviews one over the phone where they've directly asked exactly what I made in my current job. I cant say that answering honestly had any impact on their decision; because both times they lowballed me right out of the gate. One was a small company that simply didn't have anyone who made above $75k at all. The other was a funny case of I wasnt looking for a job, they called me. And when their HR woman asked me exactly what I made I told her that I would glad to tell her what I made but that she hadn't even let me know what salary range they were looking to hire someone in. When she responded something on the order of $40k, I told her that I dont work in sweat shops and reminded her that 'You called me, I am not looking for a job'.

The last interview I had was at a company which a good friend is way up on the food chain. I didnt tell them exactly what I made, but that I wouldn't leave my current company for less than around X (which was 15% higher than current at that time).

Play it by ear, if its a job you really want, and have a very good feeling I seriously doubt it can hurt to tell an approximation of your current salary; which I would do after they had talked about pay range for the job.

It really depends on who you're talking to in the interview process as well.

A hiring manager's goal is to get somebody on their team who can fill a need and fit in with the culture.

A recruiter's goal is to place you into a position and get paid for it.

They're actually pretty different.

A manager may be willing to pay, for example $45k-65k/year for a given title. They may want to minimize what they have to pay but local market is well established and right around $55k/year. They know they can't offer you *less* than you're making now as a candidate but as long as you're a good candidate and are worth $65k/year, they don't fundamentally object to paying you that if you provide value. Whether you were earning $29k or $59k a year prior is almost academic once they pass the hurdle of "Salary at $NewJob >= salary at $OldJob"

IOW, you know your rate and your salary, the hiring manager knows what they want to pay. There's some asymmetry in that exchange, but you each have a piece the other person wants.

Recruiters typically try to know both sets of information-- both what you earn now (and your salary requirement) and what the job pays. If they know the job won't pay enough, they'll drop you immediately. If they see what you earn now and what the job pays is slightly more, they can and sometimes will try to sell you on it through a variety of tactics because whether or not it meets your requirements is almost irrelevant. They have an incentive to put you into a position of higher pay sometimes, based on how they're contracted, but it's usually more efficient from their standpoint to fill more positions at an OK salary than fight for that last little bit on one individual. They just want you to commit and take the job.

You can see why that's a dangerous asymmetry of information. Hiring companies can use it as well, but the real crux *should* be whether or not you are OK with the rate, and your "OK-ness" is usually predicated on it not paying less (adjusted for all factors.) That's really the only point that they need to know. "Is the offer better than what you've got now?"

And because companies do this crap, I don't feel wrong all at when I tell them how much I want to make instead of the exact dollar figure given at the last job. After all, there are many things that you aren't paid cash for, but can convert directly into how much you'll willing to leave for. Quality of life/job/commute isn't something that's asked for under salary, but I'll be damned if I didn't consider it in my next offer.

Well, I do feel sorry for people that might've gotten a lucrative offer had they not lied about salary history. I remember one particularly promising candidate whom we actually gave a second chance: "Hey, it's me again from $company_on_the_verge_of_doubling_your_comp. You said you were making X at $company_whose_HR_we're_quite_friendly_with, right? Just wanted to make sure we heard correctly."

I very much get that sentiment, but realize that candidates are getting a mixed message.

Tell the truth, and in this case, they'll shaft you on pay.Lie, and you'll get called out for lying and obviously be denied employment (prior to or after hire.)

There's not an *easy*, stress free way to negotiate this. There are even higher-stakes scenarios where telling the truth is a gamble. Lie about a misdemeanor conviction or why you were let go from a previous employer (for cause) and maybe get hired or tell the truth and almost certainly get denied, etc.

I'm not making an ethical judgement here. I would have made the same call if somebody lied to my face, but for a lot of people these gambles pay off. There's some incentive out there to lie. I don't mean creative rounding, but out and out lying.

I very much get that sentiment, but realize that candidates are getting a mixed message.

Yes, there is lots of bad advice on the Internet. Which is why I don't mince words, particularly in the BR. "Windows or Mac?" can be a matter of opinion. Basic job hunting / personal finance skills are frankly...not.

Page 2 and I will still maintain it doesn't matter. Maybe at lower-end salaries where people play games (and I do admit that occurs more often than not) and also those shitty companies with draconian HR+Actuarial policy teams who determine "last+5%" salary matrices, but once you get out 10 years or so... it doesn't matter.

For example on the first page AgentQ said this:

Quote:

However, if you're making 75K and applying for the 100K job, then you have every incentive to keep your current salary a secret.

I respectfully disagree and cite myself as proof.

15 months ago I was laid off. While hunting around I decided two things: (1) be bold and convince others that I'm worth what I think I'm worth and (2) to stop dealing with shitty companies that lowball my ass because that affects lifetime earnings which ain't worth it.

Out of all the networking and recruiters, I whittled this down to three companies that I decided I would interview with. I told each that I was making $70k and wanted $100k. I got offers from all three of at-or-over $100k.

This means that I somehow managed to find 3 companies which (1) each understood the incentive power of $$$$ and (2) each believed that I was worth as much or more than I said I was because of how I sold myself.

I have an interview with another company coming up in a couple of weeks. Salary came up early because I brought it up early. I told them what I make now. They countered with a 30% increase plus equity. We will see how that goes.

What I did in that situation is say something to the effect of "From what I can gather from Glassdoor and so forth, the salary for that position at your company is $RANGE", which I have since been able to gather is pretty close to the mark.

They asked what I made, I told the truth, they checked, I still got what I was aiming for which is a pretty big delta even just looking at base pay and compensating for CoL, and even before you get around to counting benefits/bonus/OT/equity/etc.

Recruiting and retention is fairly difficult in the bay area for tech companies though, so I'm sure that made things easier on me and the whole HR/recruiting process more reasonable. Lowballing it too badly would create a high risk of me being poached. Previous +X% sounds like something people do when they know they can get away with it, which is most places and jobs right now.

When I looked for work last year, the recruiter knew what I earned and that was relayed to the interviewing company along with the fact I would require 10% more.

In the interview itself I confirmed old salary and said I'd need 15% more now that I had seen the parking situation (old company was free parking, this one wasn't). I was offered the job and the 15% more without any quibbling (the fact there was another company in the wings offering 40% better than my old company probably helped but that wasn't actually a role I fancied that much; it is in a bad place which is also very expensive to live in).

I've very recently discovered that I'm making at least 30% more than anyone else on the team and in some cases up to 50% more. In a lot of cases people don't sell themselves very well. Women especially seem to have a problem with asking for what they think they're worth and don't negotiate the offer made.

All those scenarios seem reasonable. Though in the example where you lied, you'd be in a real pickle if they had been your top choice, then turned around and asked for documentation...

I suppose so, but at the time it was the first time I went looking for a job post-graduation and I was quite a bit underpaid so I didn't want that to happen again. And I suppose at worst, I would have still had a decent job and the reasons I wanted to mostly leave were working themselves out anyway (I took the job to have a change).

After that I haven't had to pad it a bit, thankfully.

Quote:

In a lot of cases people don't sell themselves very well.

That just comes with time. 10 years ago not only could I not sell myself, I'm surprised I didn't get sued for completely wasting people's time in interviews.

As I've gotten better at things I'm good at and know what I offer companies, interviews have definitely tipped in my favor and it's a demonstration I put on for them rather than have them grill me over things. It sure took a while to get that level of confidence though.

That's why I said earlier, bitching about the "why" is pointless. They asked cause they asked. Who fucking cares why, they asked. If they asked, it's cause they want to know. Period. They consider it important knowledge to have, even if you think it isn't. Refusing to answer the question is not going to make them rethink their policies.

I've had jobs where part of my sign on included an NDA that covered my pay at the company. I'm a bit curious about what all the people saying "You tell them because they ask" do when someone responds: "Unfortunately the terms of my current employment include an NDA covering confidential information including current salary and compensation. I consider it important to honor my agreements with anyone that I work for."

It's not a rare thing to have in your NDA either. I've had it with about half the companies I've worked for and when asked specifics about my salary I've never had a negative reaction from responding with such a statement (that I know of).

Oh cool, a speculative situation actually exists! I'm betting this is more common in certain industries. You shouldn't break your NDA, especially since it's quite possible they know or may find out that the NDA covers it.